The Religious Method

[Mr Strawberry]

I can see you do have an information gap. Read Rodney Stark and look at some of his references.

But very basically, if you see matter as contrary to the ideal spiritual world and under the control of various gods and their changeable moods you have no basis for science as we know it.

John
NZ

Interesting then that the Renaissance picked up where the Classical world left off after a thousand year long hiatus.

 

[Elendur]

Also, I'd like some support for the claim that science arose due to Christianity, rather than they both being the result of different cultural factors. I realize that these can be hard to disentangle, but given that science-like systems have arisen in Greco-Roman, Islamic and Christian times, and that other civilizations such as China also had similar systems in place, my suspicion is that it was not so much the beliefs of Christianity, but other cultural factors that influenced the rise of science in Europe towards the system it is now.

My thoughts as well, though I chose to pursue the conclusion rather than the premise (was saving it for later).

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

(I'm pretty sure this topic has been discussed in this thread already ...)

Also, I'd like some support for the claim that science arose due to Christianity, rather than they both being the result of different cultural factors. I realize that these can be hard to disentangle, but given that science-like systems have arisen in Greco-Roman, Islamic and Christian times, and that other civilizations such as China also had similar systems in place, my suspicion is that it was not so much the beliefs of Christianity, but other cultural factors that influenced the rise of science in Europe towards the system it is now.

I'm not sure you know too much about the history of ideas and why the Greeks, Japanese, Chinese and Arabs, who were way ahead of Western Europe in the Middle Ages did not develop science and technology. The Greeks could never have developed science and technology;their cosmology made that impossible. Same with Eastern worldviews.

Yes, you have claimed that multiple times now. I asked you to actually support that.

What you are stating about the Greeks and Eastern worldviews is incorrect, by the way, and betrays an ignorance of the respective philosophies in those areas at the time.

As Johnnz pointed out, China never developed science. Neither did India, or Egypt or many other civilisations much older than Christendom. The Arab did develop science but that came from the same root as Christianity - by preserving the texts from ancient Greece.

Christianity did not "invent" science" (it's only 2,000 years old after all) but it did pick up where Greeks left off. The origins of science in the West stem from Greek philosophers such as Thales, who argued that the world worked like a giant machine. And of course, Christians argued that a giant machine must have a giant inventor: God.

The "Hellenistic church fathers" (mid-2nd to 5th century) get their name from the fact they based many of their arguments on ideas taken from Aristotle. We also know the writers of the Bible, such as Paul, were familiar with different schools of Greek philosophy because they are mentioned by name in the Bible itself.

[EDIT] Yup. We have discussed this already ...

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Interesting then that the Renaissance picked up where the Classical world left off after a thousand year long hiatus.

The difference between the Renaissance and the Middle / Dark Ages was not knowledge or education, but the availability of knowledge and education. Prior to the invention of the printing press, monks and nuns were pretty much the only people who could read and write. It's no coincidence that it also led to religious upheavels, since people began to realize what the church said and what the Bible said didn't always match.

Language probably had something to do with it too. Korea had the printing press long before Europe, and it's arrival in Arabic countries didn't seem to have any effect. Why? Probably because Korea and Arabic letters were far more difficult to print than European letters.

 

[Tomk80]

(I'm pretty sure this topic has been discussed in this thread already ...)






As Johnnz pointed out, China never developed science. Neither did India, or Egypt or many other civilisations much older than Christendom. The Arab did develop science but that came from the same root as Christianity - by preserving the texts from ancient Greece.

Christianity did not "invent" science" (it's only 2,000 years old after all) but it did pick up where Greeks left off. The origins of science in the West stem from Greek philosophers such as Thales, who argued that the world worked like a giant machine. And of course, Christians argued that a giant machine must have a giant inventor: God.

The "Hellenistic church fathers" (mid-2nd to 5th century) get their name from the fact they based many of their arguments on ideas taken from Aristotle. We also know the writers of the Bible, such as Paul, were familiar with different schools of Greek philosophy because they are mentioned by name in the Bible itself.

[EDIT] Yup. We have discussed this already ...

But what has not been supported is that Christianity was the cause of this, rather than present at the same time. You have claimed that it is in previous posts, and have done so again in the post I am now responding to. But you have not supported that claim.

I would submit that another likely (if not more likely) explanation is that societal pressures at the time were responsible for the rise of science, not Christian philosophy. In fact, in your last post you already pointed in that direction yourself. Contrary to your claims, you have already shown in your own post that a belief in an ordered universe is not unique to Christianity. Aristotelian philosophy also held to this, as did many other belief systems. So this belief is not a Christian invention, and this belief was not what drove the development of sciencd beyond the philosophy of the Greco-Roman philosophers.

So if you want to support your claim, you will have to find the different circumstances that lead to the development of science in Europe in that particular era, rather than anywhere else. You also have to make plausible that those differences arose because of Christianity.

You will need todo both. So far, you have supported neither of these aspects.

 

[Johnnz]

But what has not been supported is that Christianity was the cause of this, rather than present at the same time. You have claimed that it is in previous posts, and have done so again in the post I am now responding to. But you have not supported that claim.

Neither have you made any references to well researched historical material, especially the history of ideas.

I would submit that another likely (if not more likely) explanation is that societal pressures at the time were responsible for the rise of science, not Christian philosophy. In fact, in your last post you already pointed in that direction yourself. Contrary to your claims, you have already shown in your own post that a belief in an ordered universe is not unique to Christianity. Aristotelian philosophy also held to this, as did many other belief systems. So this belief is not a Christian invention, and this belief was not what drove the development of sciencd beyond the philosophy of the Greco-Roman philosophers.

Aristoltean philosophy did not believe in an ordered universe as we do today. Quite the opposite. For Plato essential qualities were spiritual realities outside of nature. Aristotle saw them as inherent within each element, a substance had so much weight, beauty, etc from which we could deduce final reality. That is not the basis for science. He did introduce the concept of categorization which later times built on.

So if you want to support your claim, you will have to find the different circumstances that lead to the development of science in Europe in that particular era, rather than anywhere else. You also have to make plausible that those differences arose because of Christianity.

You will need todo both. So far, you have supported neither of these aspects.

Two books - Secular
A History of Western Thought: From Ancient Greece to the Twentieth Century

[FONT=&quot]Gunnar Skirbekk (Author), Nils Gilje (Translator), Ronald Worley (Translator) [/FONT]

Christian
Christianity and Western Thought, Volume 1: From the Ancient World to the Age of Enlightenment (Christianity & Western Thought) by Colin Brown

Happy reading. I will try to find another one I know of but cannot recall right now

John
NZ

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

I would submit that another likely (if not more likely) explanation is that societal pressures at the time were responsible for the rise of science, not Christian philosophy. In fact, in your last post you already pointed in thatdirection yourself. Contrary to your claims, you have already shown in your own post that a belief in an ordered universe is not unique to Christianity. Aristotelian philosophy also held to this, as did many other belief systems. So this belief is not a Christian invention, and this belief was not what drove the development of sciencd beyond the philosophy of the Greco-Roman philosophers.

Again, I did say Christianity did not "invent" science, partly because it's only 2,000 years old - it revived ideas developed by the Greeks which had been lost after the fall of Rome.

But what has not been supported is that Christianity was the cause of this, rather than present at the same time. You have claimed that it is in previous posts, and have done so again in the post I am now responding to. But you have not supported that claim.
...
So if you want to support your claim, you will have to find the different circumstances that lead to the development of science in Europe in that particular era, rather than anywhere else. You also have to make plausible that those differences arose because of Christianity.

I don't think anyone here is claiming that Christianity actually invented science - and if they are they'd be incorrect. What I and others are saying is that science was developed in Christendom (and Islam I would add) because they saw it as a method to interpret what a rational, logical creator had made.

Since you apparently didn't read the link to my previous thread:

There was no confidence that the code of nature's law could ever be unveiled and read, because there was no assurance that a divine being, even more rational than ourselves, had ever formulated such a code capable of being read.​

- 'The Grand Titration:
Science and Society in the East and West'
by Joseph Needham​

All forms of monotheism (with one possible exception) began in the Middle East, and possibly North Africa. China never had monotheism, neither did India nor Europe prior to the arrival of Christianity. The idea of a single all-powerful being that created everything step-by-step simply never occurred to them

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Something else to consider: why did science fall in the Middle East? During the Middle Ages they were more advanced compared to the Christians in Europe, so why aren't they leading science today? In fact the nation with the most contributions to science today is the USA, where 48% the population believe in some form of creationism.

 

[Johnnz]

Another two books, one by an author from outside western culture

The Book that Made Your World: How the Bible Created the Soul of Western Civilization
Vishal Mangalwad

The Passion of the Western Mind: Understanding the Ideas that Have Shaped Our World View [Paperback]
[FONT=&quot]Richard Tarnas[/FONT]

John
NZ